One of the things liberals remember best about Ronald Reagan
is that he said trees cause pollution.The
reason they remember this is that it makes them feel superior to him, and no
wonder.Can you imagine anything that
sounds stupider than that?It’s the kind
of statement for which we’d expect Sarah Palin to be ridiculed, despite her
never having said it.

So why would Reagan say such a thing?Because trees cause pollution, that’s
why.In particular, decaying leaves and
pine needles produce organic compounds that contribute
to smog and acid rain.His point was not
that trees are bad for the earth, but that the way we define pollution often
results in alarmist conclusions, and policies that needlessly inflict economic
harm on people.As if to deliberately
confirm Reagan’s contention, Barack Obama’s EPA has classified carbon dioxide –
the stuff that trees breathe – as a “pollutant.”Obama himself, in last month’s State of the Union Address, declared that
“climate change” caused by CO2 “is a fact.”

If CO2 is a pollutant, then the leading sources of this
pollution include such unnatural phenomena as animal exhalations,
decomposition, wildfires and volcanoes.The EPA doesn’t plainly state that trees cause pollution, but according
to their own definition, “pollution” is caused in part by burning and rotting
trees.

Of course, living trees absorb a great deal of this same
“pollution,” and so does oceanic plant life.What liberals would have us believe is that this cycle is perfectly
capable of absorbing just the right amount of natural CO2, but cannot handle
the relatively small additional amount that is manmade.What’s peculiar about that supposition is
that natural CO2 emissions are nowhere near constant, but instead fluctuate
dramatically.When emissions increase
from one year to the next, those who speak for science talk as if the earth
knows whether the additional CO2 is natural or manmade, and consciously
discriminates between the two.Actually,
they don’t give nature that much credit; otherwise, they’d be more willing to
trust it.

The reason the EPA has declared CO2 to be a pollutant is
that it’s a greenhouse gas, but it is neither the most potent nor the most
abundant of greenhouse gases.The most
potent is methane, which is generated by decomposing organic matter.One of the leading sources of methane is
swamps, or as they are known to liberals, “federally protected wetlands.”The most abundant greenhouse gas is water
vapor, a fact that ought to give environmentally concerned college students
pause while they’re boiling their Oodles of Noodles.If something as ubiquitous as human breath
can be blamed for global destruction, then why not steam, also?

Looking
back, it’s a wonder that the earth survived for as long as it did before
liberals came along to save it.Notice
that many of the environmentalists’ most feared bogeymen – like extinction,
erosion, and invasive species – are everyday facts of nature.The earth – which they often claim to be a
living, and even sentient being – must be dumb as a mollusk to have spent so
many millions of years engaging in these self-destructive activities.Furthermore, the earth must have had no idea
what its optimum temperature was, how much CO2 belonged in its atmosphere,
how many billions of people it could support, or to which geographic area it
must confine each particular species.Only liberals know these things – or at least they feel them, which is
even better.

It only stands to reason that liberals would perceive the
earth this way, once they have attributed human characteristics to it.Just look at the way they treat real human
beings.They practically dedicate their
existence to their perceived need to save us from ourselves.As far as they’re concerned, mere citizens
can’t even be trusted to determine their own eating habits, let alone to raise
their own children, decide what kind of car to drive, or handle firearms.Why should they find the earth any more
trustworthy?

It’s a wonder that liberals don’t reinvigorate our space
program, just so they can hassle the man in the moon.Perhaps they could send an OSHA official to
demand that he pay to have all the craters filled in.Trip hazards, don’t you know.Would that be so much more absurd than
penalizing human beings for the earth’s temperature?

In truth, the greenies didn’t disagree with Reagan when he
said that trees cause pollution.They
only took umbrage at his suggestion that this meant there was no need for their
meddling.